Kristin Hamon

Preparation Time – 40 minutes

Writing Time – 80 minutes

Touching the Face of an “Imageless God”

The Puritans were a people who worshipped a God of many names, without any descriptive images. In seeking to follow Judeo-Christian teachings and doctrine, these early people acquired nostalgia for apostolic living and an identity that was created in the unfathomable image of God. The Puritans predetermined the ideals of the dominant culture that now exists as a standard of measurement for all immigrants seeking safety in the arms of assimilation. If the dominant culture, however, is embodied in an unmarked people, how can a marked people ever reconcile their identity with that of the dominant culture? The Puritans only way to describe their God was to cling to the many characteristics that exposed the nature of God; perhaps those wanting to understand the dominant culture must follow suit. By identifying multiple aspects of this often elusive culture, one might realize that an immigrant trying to describe the face of the dominant culture is comparable to Moses desiring to see and describe the face of an imageless God.

In the true pattern of a dominant culture that has been pervaded by Protestantism, it seems appropriate to begin the description of this culture with a linear sense of beginnings. John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” From this first descriptive moment of creation, John describes God as existing with and being defined by language. A more powerful motif depicting the importance of literacy could scarce be found. Literacy is one of the most definable aspects of the dominant culture. To be literate is to be considered intelligent and educated. Moses existed as one of the first finite beings in the Bible to personify the importance of literacy. After receiving the Ten Commandments and additional case laws, Exodus 24:4-7 explains that he “wrote down all the words of the Lord” and then Moses “took the Book of the Covenant and read it” to the people. The Puritans followed this said example when they decided that the Mayflower Compact must be written down in order to make it similar to a holy covenant among the people (Bradford 84). The Puritans incited this obsession with literacy that now exists as a gatekeeper for all those wanting to assimilate.

Presidential First Ladies and politicians will use the lack of literacy to bemoan the current state of our society; even members of the dominant culture will openly speak about the illiterate in a way that they might not speak about the “color code.” In this way, immigrants often understand that literacy is the one component of the dominant culture that must be acquired in order to obtain any economic success. In “The English Lesson,” Mr. Paczkowski stands apart from all other immigrants due to his excellent English and high level of education. He seems “different” to the rest of the students and Mrs. Hamma, unable to hide her excitement, praises this aspect of the dominant culture. After Mr. Paczkowski tells of his studies (in a most reserved and dominant culture fashion) she exclaims, “That’s admirable! I’m sure sir, that you will do very well…a person of your…like yourself, I mean…a professor, after all, it’s really just admirable” (Mohr 27). For a moment, she allows her allegiance to the dominant culture to become exposed and, as a result, quickly tells everyone to applaud for Mr. Paczkowski in an attempt to treat all her students “equally.” This quick glimpse of Mrs. Hamma’s satisfaction with Mr. Packzkowski tends to be representative of a larger held belief that all model minority immigrants are to be praised. Unfortunately, such high priority is placed on literacy that if an immigrant does not acquire the language, identifying with the more subtle aspects of America’s dominant culture might prove to be a wasted effort.

Another way to describe the members of the dominant culture is by their rejection of assimilation and their demand for others to assimilate to them. The earliest and most profound example of this resistance was recorded in the Israelites exodus through the wilderness and into the inhabited land of “milk and honey.” The dominant culture often feels justified in their resistance due to the covenant they feel has been created for them. The early Puritans created the Mayflower compact as an example of civility in stark contrast with the practices of the “savage” Native Americans. Similarly, Moses explicates that the covenant with the Lord will only be kept providing that the people do not “do as they do in the land of Canaan” (Leviticus 18:27). Prohibiting intermarriage and the worship of “graven images” were just a few of the forbidden actions for the Israelite people. The Puritans mirror this dominant behavior and example of national migration when Bradford explains how the Puritan parents feared that “their posterity would be in danger” and their children would be “corrupted” by the “Dutch melting pot” (Bradford 26). Perhaps this is why the twenty-first century’s media has just begun to entertain the concept of interracial relationships.

Much like the immigrants, the dominant culture’s traditional resistance will only be broken down if there is a generational “glitch” in this pattern. The story “Gussuk” shows the dominant culture as willing to entertain past ethnic influences, but not at the risk of losing dominant culture status. A highly assimilated “Lucy” realized that “she didn’t belong” in Kigiak and eventually seeks haven in more civil Anchorage, Alaska (Evans 250-251). Unfortunately, Lucy’s identity struggle personifies a common and paradoxical problem for immigrants. They are expected to assimilate to the dominant culture, but a chief aspect of the dominant culture is its unwillingness to assimilate. Model minorities seem to be somewhat successful in the unraveling of this enigma, while distinct minority cultures often remain clueless as to why they cannot completely assimilate.

One of the last and most uncomfortable traits of the dominant culture is the plain and reserved style that breeds capitalistic success. In “Hunting Mr. Heartbreak,” we see the “air people” defined as a rational and typified example of the dominant culture. Raban expertly conveys an unavoidable chasm that exists between the street people and air people concerning their judiciousness. Raban exposes the wild spirit of the “street people” in describing the type of news stories the “air people” might read about them. He lists audacious headlines such as “father stabs three-year-old son, believing him to be Satan,” or “Kin held in two bludgeonings” (Raban 354-355). There are no news examples of “air people” being tormented or slain. In this way, Raban is able to easily persuade his reader of the rationality that must exist for the dominant culture. They are reserved, simple, wealthy, and aloof – much like the guards watching my students enter the Museum of Fine Arts, wondering how local Hispanic youth gained entry into their elitist cultural bubble of classical art – but only glancing at the teens for a moment for fear of drawing any confrontation. The immigrants understand that this elusive nature and bland identity has its benefits. A student of mine always jokes that I must leave school in order to go to the “GAP” and listen to “Kenny G.”-  as though these choices are all that is prohibiting him from being “white.” They understand. The dominant culture is colorless, odorless, and functional in an attempt to remain adaptable to any environment with which it comes into contact.

Seeking entrance into the world of the dominant culture seems impossible. Perhaps this is why discussing the subject matter is often avoided and curtailed. The disconcerting truth is that there is not a clear description of the culture. Exposing the sacred subtleties seems to be the only way to define those who set the rules for assimilation. The paradoxical issue remains, however, that if all immigrants learn to be members of the dominant culture, it no longer exists as dominant. After trying to describe the face of the dominant culture, I can understand the struggle of the apostles. How do you live your life in a way that is in the image of something you have never actually seen? The apostles created many names for God: Elohim (the preserver), Jehovah-m ‘Kaddesh (the one who makes clean), or Yeshua (the Savior of a people).  Perhaps members of the dominant culture have followed Moses’ original desire for a godly image more than they realize, for they preserve their culture, praise simplicity and cleanliness, and might even consider themselves the savior of America’s immigrant people.

Works Cited

Bradford, William.  Of Plymouth Plantation. New York: The Modern Library, 1981.

Evans, Mei Mei. “Gussuk.” from Imagining America: Stories from the Promised Land. New York: Persea Books, 2002.

Mohr, Nicholasa. “The English Lesson.” from Imagining America: Stories from the Promised Land. New York: Persea Books, 2002.

Raban, Jonathan. “from Hunting Mr. Heartbreak.” Visions of America Handout: 344-356. Immigrant Literature - UHCL. Summer 2008.

Ryken, Leland and Philip Graham Ryken. The Literary Study Bible (ESV). Illinois: Crossway Bibles, 2007.